Postmortem of Israeli-Hezbollah War – What Next?

The term ``atheist`` can have many meanings, not all of which mean exactly the same thing. I would like to clarify that when I said I am an ``atheist`` I meant that I am one of those people who simply DO NOT KNOW, OR ARE UNSURE ABOUT MANY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS IN LIFE. In my case, ``atheist`` doesn`t not mean denying the existence of ``God`` - it simply means that I do not have enough information to decide one way or the other.

#205 by tahmed32

[#204 you think your Fact #5 is a fact because you missed the point. The point was that your ``Fact #5`` is a subjective view. This is irrelevant to the question of the prophet`s character one way or another, as you incorrectly assume (So this cannot be used to defend his character. ) ]

Fact# 5 was the following:

``Fact#5: Muhammad`s actions were appalling by ANY standards or ANY age (beheading unarmed men, selling their women and children into slavery and a million other things).``

I guess you could say that a man who beheaded 700 unarmed men and sold their helpless and innocent women and children into slavery could be considered by some as a good man. Just like Hitler was considered a good man by many. So by that definition Fact#5 is indeed subjective, because ``good`` and ``bad`` are truly subjective terms - one would have to establish the benchmark in advance and everybody would have to agree to those benchmarks for it to be viewed as ``objective`` by everybody.

But I think that people who are not sold to any idea, and are willing to think independently, could reach no other conclusion.

But I leave you to your beliefs, without which no doubt you would be lost. I don`t think you are a strong man in your mental discipline.



[You say: I am not sure what you mean by ``the former``. I meant this was the ``error of omission`` in your earlier post. ]

I am still not sure what I am omitting. It is simply the case of deciding if some act is appalling or not. If I think it is appalling, you could say you don`t agree that it is, but that does not mean I am omitting anything.



[Islam, or any other great religion or philosophy or weltenschauung (to put it more accurately), is about concepts, not personalities.]

If a serial killer comes to me and lectures me on certain ``concepts`` of goodness etc., I would choose not to listen, regardless of the contents.

However, when I even cite the ``concepts`` contained in the Quran, you rush to say that all the bad sayings are ``distortions``. Kind of convenient, don`t you think?



[I think the prophet tried to convey what he understood to be the message he heard in the cave as faithfully as he could - I say this because in the message he conveyed (i.e. as recorded in the Quran), his own role is limited. If he was not honest, he would have suppressed verses which limit his role to that of a ``messenger`` only, and do not extend any secular authority to him. ]

``If he was not honest, he would have suppressed verses which limit his role to that of a ``messenger`` only``

- this is not proof one way or the other. He was a clever man - this assertion of his only made him more believable in the eyes of his followers. This really proves NOTHING.


[The answer is not to ``edit`` the Quran - the answer is to take a holistic view of the basic spirit of the Quran.]

I think as long as the hateful stuff remains in the quran, people are going to read them, and use them as justification to kill other people.


[And to understand this spirit - this core message- one should look at thedirection the Quran pointed towards to a 7th century society. And the direction was clearly towards the equality of all individuals regardless of race, religion of gener; towards civilized values of respect for all; towards character building in terms of honesty and integrity. ]

Yes, this line is used by Muslims a lot. (if you notice, we are already debating the concepts in the Quran, ALREADY assuming that Muhammad was not lying about chatting with God).

In any case, racism, as we know it today - meaning looking down on blacks etc. was MUCH LESS PREVALENT in the ancient world. Also, he was living in a fairly homogenized society consisting of mostly Jews, Arabs and Christians. And his hatred for the ``other``, that is those who did not submit to his views, is blatantly visible all over the Quran. But then that is a ``subjective`` view, isn`t it? :) And you could say that the incitement to kill, and rob don`t really mean a thing.


[You write I personally am an atheist, and really find all this obsession with rituals and divine laws etc. as extraordinarily stupid, but human. For most people, religion is a mental crutch that they need to survive happily in a society

Religion is indeed a mental crutch. But we humans are indeed weaklings and need a crutch - a philosophy of life- to make sense of the powerful forces of nature that we do not understand. The reality of the miracle of birth and the mystery of death. The reality of the vastness of the heavens. For primitive people, this ``philosophy`` begins and ends in the form of offering ``sacrifice`` to a deity. For a slavish people, this crutch begins and ends in the form of following ``personality cults`` (the ``man worshippers`` I referred to). Both of these are widespread in the muslim world, which are ridden by personality cults. But this is not the Islam I see in the Quran.]

Since we are already working under the assumption that Muhammad was truthful about chatting with ``God`` in a cave, why don`t you list for me a few quotations from the Quran that you find so revolutionary.

I failed to find any - all I found was endless repetitions of stuff that is unimpressive, trite and commonplace. So maybe you could help me point out the quotations that have impressed you to such an extent. Please cut and paste a few specific suras that you think are so revolutionary. And then I will then check other pre-existing religious textbooks and see if I can find all of that already mentioned elsewhere.

Thanks. :-)

#204 you think your Fact #5 is a fact because you missed the point. The point was that your ``Fact #5`` is a subjective view. This is irrelevant to the question of the prophet`s character one way or another, as you incorrectly assume (So this cannot be used to defend his character. )



You say: I am not sure what you mean by ``the former``. I meant this was the ``error of omission`` in your earlier post.

Islam, or any other great religion or philosophy or weltenschauung (to put it more accurately), is about concepts, not personalities. I will be the first to agree that ``Islam`` as practiced by ``Islamists`` or even the vast majority of muslims is about personalities - and that is why I call them ``man worshippers``. But that does not take away my right to hold a different view of Islam based on what I see clearly written in the Quran.

You say: The answer to that, as I have indicated, is determined by his credibility as a person.

I think the prophet tried to convey what he understood to be the message he heard in the cave as faithfully as he could - I say this because in the message he conveyed (i.e. as recorded in the Quran), his own role is limited. If he was not honest, he would have suppressed verses which limit his role to that of a ``messenger`` only, and do not extend any secular authority to him.

Again, I will agree that there is a strong wave in the muslim world today to create theocratic states - but again, it is my right as a muslim to hold a different view of Islam based on what I see clearly written in the Quran.

you write As I have said before, for most people, religion and culture are intertwined. In fact, very few people bother about the intricacies of theology, but are happy to exist withing the framework of the society they are born into, with its customs and celebrations and rituals.
Agreed. And that is why the original message is lost, and is replaced by a culture of slaves. Which is muslim culture today - a culture based on outdated concepts of absolute monarchs who claim to speak for God.

You write While no society is perfect, I think there are specific views expressed in the Quran that can be used by those who want to divide societies, to do so.
It is indeed true that selected verses are quoted from the Quran by those seeking to create mischief in this world. The answer is not to ``edit`` the Quran - the answer is to take a holistic view of the basic spirit of the Quran. And to understand this spirit - this core message- one should look at thedirection the Quran pointed towards to a 7th century society. And the direction was clearly towards the equality of all individuals regardless of race, religion of gener; towards civilized values of respect for all; towards character building in terms of honesty and integrity.

You write I personally am an atheist, and really find all this obsession with rituals and divine laws etc. as extraordinarily stupid, but human. For most people, religion is a mental crutch that they need to survive happily in a society

Religion is indeed a mental crutch. But we humans are indeed weaklings and need a crutch - a philosophy of life- to make sense of the powerful forces of nature that we do not understand. The reality of the miracle of birth and the mystery of death. The reality of the vastness of the heavens. For primitive people, this ``philosophy`` begins and ends in the form of offering ``sacrifice`` to a deity. For a slavish people, this crutch begins and ends in the form of following ``personality cults`` (the ``man worshippers`` I referred to). Both of these are widespread in the muslim world, which are ridden by personality cults. But this is not the Islam I see in the Quran.

#203 by tahmed32


[On the latter: Your Fact #5 (Muhammad`s actions were appalling by ANY standards or ANY age ) is in fact a subjective assessment. And indeed a biased assessment that is contradicted by neutral scholars from the west - Muhammed, e.g., is also the individual who negotiated the peace of Hudaiybiah, and said (per common belief among muslims) things like ``the pen is mightier than the sword`` and ``Go even to China to learn``. ]

Okay, let`s look at this objectively then.

You cite the following two facts to prove that my Fact #5 is not an objective fact:

1) Neutral scholars from the West say that his actions were not appalling.

2) Muhammad did good deeds, for example:

a) negotiated the peace of Hudaibah, and

b) said things like ``the pen is mightier than the sword`` and ``Go even to China to learn``.


Now lets` look at these two points:

1. [Neutral scholars from the West say that his actions were not appalling.]

This does not indicate anything either way - there are many other neutral scholars who say VERY bad things about him. So this cannot be used to defend his character.

2. [Muhammad did good deeds, for example:

a) negotiated the peace of Hudaibah, and

b) said things like ``the pen is mightier than the sword`` and ``Go even to China to learn``.]

If you look at my Fact#6, I mentioned the following:

[Fact#6: Just like in Boolean,

1 AND 0 equates to 0,

in the case of judging character,

``good deeds`` AND ``appalling deeds`` equates to ``appalling character`` ]

Hitler did many good things, and said many good things. But he was the architect of the exterminations of millions of human beings. And is rightfully considered a monster. So Muhammad`s ``good deeds`` and ``good sayings`` cannot be used to negate the horrible things he did - for example (and I will cite only ONE example here) - beheading 700 unarmed civilians and selling their innocent and helpless women and children as slaves.

Therefore, my Fact #5 stands.



[On the former, while the prophet Muhammed may hold a central place in religion for many muslims - his role is explicitly limited in the Quran (and integral to the kalima, which all muslims know by heart but whose meaning is lost on most of them) to that of being a messenger only. The message of Islam comes, per muslim belief, from God. And God`s character is reflected in his creation - worlds without end, a universe in a drop of water. ]


I am not sure what you mean by ``the former``. But I am guessing that you are referring to the following contention I made:

No Muhammad -> No Quran -> No Islam.

You are an intelligent person. I would urge you to think about this. You say - ``The message of Islam comes, per muslim belief, from God.``. Yes, but that would be true ONLY IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT MUHAMMAD ACTUALLY COMMUNICATED WITH GOD. Without that, there would be no ``muslim belief``.

So the question becomes - CAN YOU BELIEVE MUHAMMAD WHEN HE SAID THAT HE COMMUNICATED WITH GOD?

The answer to that, as I have indicated, is determined by his credibility as a person.

And therein lies the rub.



[I will agree with you that ``muslims`` today are among the biggest jahils on earth. But that does not mean that muslims have no choice but to surrender their faith to these would-be brahmins of muslim society (the maulvis, aalims and so forth).]

As I have said before, for most people, religion and culture are intertwined. In fact, very few people bother about the intricacies of theology, but are happy to exist withing the framework of the society they are born into, with its customs and celebrations and rituals. And Muslims have developed a unique culture, which naturally and rightfully they cherish. India, and the whole world for that matter, is enriched by the different cultures that exist - otherwise things would be too one dimensional. That is indeed a wonderful thing and should be celebrated. But for this to happen, and for a peaceful society, one must get rid of the specific things that cause friction. While no society is perfect, I think there are specific views expressed in the Quran that can be used by those who want to divide societies, to do so. Now you may say that all of that is a distortion of the original message of the Quran. That`s absolutely fine with me - I really don`t care either way - as long as that is edited out of the Quran. Also, if successive generations of muslim historians would try and eliminate the negative accounts of Muhammad`s life from his biography, it would have a very positive impact. Because common people are common - they will often create a cult of personality. Therefore we need to make sure the personality projected is a positive one (Buddha is a good example).

I personally am an atheist, and really find all this obsession with rituals and divine laws etc. as extraordinarily stupid, but human. For most people, religion is a mental crutch that they need to survive happily in a society (although as the Chinese experience shows, millions of people can live perfectly happily without religion as well). Maybe someday people will be able to think for themselves, and treat religion as philosophy - to be debated, accepted or rejected at will just like any other branch of knowledge.

I bear no ill-will towards anybody. I abhor the predatory, and us-and-them aspects of missionary-style religions. Because that is the one thing that has caused, and still continues to cause, untold sufferings to humanity. I hope we someday wake up, and see everybody as one - because we truly are one species - bound to this tiny speck of a life-raft speeding though limitless space at an inconcievable velocity. There`s much more to think about, and worry about, than all this garbage and nonsense humanity is obsessed about today.

#202: krishna: your post has errors of omission and of commission.

On the latter: Your Fact #5 (Muhammad`s actions were appalling by ANY standards or ANY age ) is in fact a subjective assessment. And indeed a biased assessment that is contradicted by neutral scholars from the west - Muhammed, e.g., is also the individual who negotiated the peace of Hudaiybiah, and said (per common belief among muslims) things like ``the pen is mightier than the sword`` and ``Go even to China to learn``.

On the former, while the prophet Muhammed may hold a central place in religion for many muslims - his role is explicitly limited in the Quran (and integral to the kalima, which all muslims know by heart but whose meaning is lost on most of them) to that of being a messenger only. The message of Islam comes, per muslim belief, from God. And God`s character is reflected in his creation - worlds without end, a universe in a drop of water.

I will agree with you that ``muslims`` today are among the biggest jahils on earth. But that does not mean that muslims have no choice but to surrender their faith to these would-be brahmins of muslim society (the maulvis, aalims and so forth).

#200 by tahmed32

[#199 krishna: You are confusing ``Facts`` with ``Beliefs``. Facts can be verified by one`s senses. Beliefs are what we choose to believe. So, all your ``Fact #s`` should in fact be re-titled ``Belief #s``.

So, kindly revise your your post for this basic error. Then pass remarks about bigger things, like other people`s religious beliefs. :-)]

Okay then. Show me how each fact I listed is not verifiable, but is only my belief.

Show me.

Thanks. :-)

Sattar2: sorry for the delay in getting back.

On #196, you write In my view Quran aims to forge and foster a relationship between humans and their Creator.

This is part of the truth. The Quran certainly emphasizes the majesty of Creation and the concept of a Conscious, All-Powerful, All-Knowing Being.

The other part of the truth is that the Quran also provides guidelines that have to do with the relationships between humans and humans. This is in two basic ways:

1. Intellectual Honesty: You touch upon that when you say Delving further in this central theme leads one to the unmistakable notion of integrity, individual responsibility, and honesty/ This has to do with relationships between humans and humans, not humans and the Creator. That is - since the Quran says that Allah knows what is in one`s heart - one cannot by definition be dishonest with Allah. However, (except perhaps on chowk!!), people`s true character cannot be known by other humans. Same for individual commitments, responsibility, ``giving fair measure`` in business dealings, and even surprisingly practical guidelines like encouragement to have ``written agreements``.

2. Intellectual Responsibility: This means using one`s God-given faculties to see, hear and think in a responsible manner. Not letting these be befogged by physical narcotics or ``intellectual`` narcotics (i.e. ideologies). Not letting these be subordinated to the views of some other individual. And - moving forward - actively using one`s abilities to study God`s Creation (which is the basic reason God created man to begin with, per the Quran. In other words to study science - as at least one prominent writer (Huston Smith, in the best selling ``The World`s Religions``) writes, this is the essential contribution of Islam relative to the great religions of the world that preceded it. Thus - it is all the more ironic that, with some notable bright periods centuries ago - muslims are today the most ignorant among the world`s people.

So, where you and I differ is in I think in the emphasis - I see human to human relationships to be the most prominent aspect of the Quran. You see it as something that follows. Our differences on the need for a ``guide`` (as I think you put it) in the form of a continuing series of prophets - stem from this underlying difference.

I am glad you think I am an OK guy, and I am sure you are a fine individual too in real life. So, let us not allow our differences in viewpoints imply there is any personal animosity. We are all travellers for a brief time on earth, all seeking our own ways to make sense of this gift of life that has been given to us. That is all.

#199 krishna: You are confusing ``Facts`` with ``Beliefs``. Facts can be verified by one`s senses. Beliefs are what we choose to believe. So, all your ``Fact #s`` should in fact be re-titled ``Belief #s``.

So, kindly revise your your post for this basic error. Then pass remarks about bigger things, like other people`s religious beliefs. :-)

Re: various by sattar2 and tahmed32

You guys are fighting around semantics.

Here are some indisputable facts:

Fact #1: In order for Islam to exist, you need to BELIEVE that Muhammad was NOT LYING when he said that God had communicated the Quran to him.

Fact #2: If Muhammad was indeed lying, then you guys are arguing for nothing - the whole thing is one big hoax.

Fact#3: A person should be judged about his truthfulness by his demonstrated character.

Fact#4: The best way to judge someone character is by his/her actions.

Fact#5: Muhammad`s actions were appalling by ANY standards or ANY age (beheading unarmed men, selling their women and children into slavery and a million other things).

Fact#6: Just like in Boolean,

1 AND 0 equates to 0,

in the case of judging character,

``good deeds`` AND ``appalling deeds`` equates to ``appalling character``


Therefore, he was a man of bad character -> therefore he cannot be trusted about truthfulness -> therefore the Quran was made up by him -> therefore the whole Islam thing is a hoax perpetrated on some uneducated Bedouins who then unfortunately spread it around.

It is quite simple, once you have the courage to face it.

tahmed,

You’ve finally admitted an obvious point: accepting prophets is indeed a part of Quranic teachings. But you object if one follows this teaching of Quran. Your reasoning has too many gaps!

Your conflict lies not with Ahmadis, but with Quran itself. This also explains your erroneous conclusion regarding the “last prophet” issue. Once again you are trying to shoe-horn your belief into Quran.

+++

Primary purpose of a lighthouse is to give light. However, when constructing a lighthouse, it is foolish to ignore its foundations, building structure, electrical connections, and making sure that the lighthouse is facing in the correct direction.

Details matter. Calling them “secondary issues” and ignoring them is not a smart thing to do. Condemning others for following these details is foolish.

More on secondary issues

Arguably, Quranic commandments to fast during ramazan, to perform hujj, to shun eating pork are issues “secondary” to the primary teachings of Quran.

Will you now tell me that Ahmadis violate Quran because they fast, perform hujj, and shun eating pork? None of these conflict with primary teachings of Quran, agreed. And neither does accepting prophets. If you think otherwise, your conflict lies with Quran.

If you still disagree, re-think this over a rack of pork chops for dinner. Then we can discuss your issues with “secondary teachings of Quran”.

tahmed, you’re probably an ok guy, although a bit headstrong at times. At times you are blind to obvious flaws in your reasoning … [rolling my eyes as I write this].

Over and out, captain. Hope you’ll come back to planet earth soon.

Dikhlaa-iyay Laijaa kay tujhhay misr kaa bazaar
KhahaaN haheeN y`aaN koi kisi jins-i garaN kaa``

Watch this.....show

tahmed (#194):

You may consider accepting prophets of Allah a secondary issue, and that’s fine. I think you’d agree that an issue being secondary does not render the issue completely futile.

In other words, a ”secondary” issue deserves ”secondary” consideration; no more and no less. Declaring a secondary issue completely pointless is a mistake.

Central message of Quran

In my view Quran aims to forge and foster a relationship between humans and their Creator. Love for the Creator, and hence love for His creation, stems from this central theme. Delving further in this central theme leads one to the unmistakable notion of integrity, individual responsibility, and honesty.

You agree that prophets are the ”means” to this end. You also agree that in Quran Allah asks believers to accept His prophets.

For one to ignore these teachings from Allah Himself, and to render futile accepting a prophet, is inconsistent with teachings of Quran.

Crux of the discussion

This discussion started when you declared that Ahamdis violate teachings of Quran by accepting a prophet. In the following discussion you have agreed that accepting a prophet is a secondary issue in Quran. Note the contradiction in your views.

Are you suggesting that Ahmadis violate Quran by following its (“secondary”) commandments? [Note that accepting a prophet does not conflict with the central message of Quran].

If you think that by accepting a prophet an individual violates central Quranic teachings, then you should agree that Allah contradicts Himself when He asks that His prophets be accepted.

Your views are self-contradictory. When you declare Ahmadis in violation of Quran on basis of such views, you underscore your own shortcoming at understanding message of Quran.

And that`s the point I am trying to make ...

#165 by qusman1

[Re: # 147
krishna_abcd- We need some kind of a criterion.]

We can talk about ``criterion`` as long as you Muslims agree to the ``right of return`` in principle. Even if they do not get specific property, they should have the right to visit, stay in, and buy property. Also, a fair proportion of the land should be given back to them - maybe we can go by the proportion of Jews/Christians/Muslims existing back then.

The first step, however, is agreeing on principle - that Jews, Christians should be able to live with exactly equal rights in Mecca and Medina.

What do you say? You think your Islamic brethren would be enthusiatic about this ``right of return``?

Sattar2 #186 I think the central point you make in this post is acceptance of the prophets. You underline this point in the text (``Allah Himself asks believers to accept His prophets``) and also repeat in your conclusions (``You are yet to show why in Quran Allah asks people to accept His prophets. This is the crux of the matter that you continue to ignore.``).

I think the central point of the Quran is acceptance of individual responsibility for distinguishing between good and evil and for one`s actions. A prophet is merely the means to this end. And as such, questions related to prophethood are, imho, secondary to the central message of Islam which is that of individual responsibility.

Thus, I am working from a different framework than the one implicit in your post in the first instance. Secondly, on the question of whether the Prophet Muhammed was the final prophet, you and I have discussed this before and we obviously differ in our interpretation of the Quran on this question.

I would therefore most respectfully disagree with your views on this matter, as I always have. Let us therefore move on to other issues where we do have common ground - our love for Pakistan and wish to see it become a leader, not a follower in the family of nations in matters of social and political progress. A part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

echoboom: behram gave you some more advice, and concluded in his post to you that Sure, if only that helps you with your complex ridden self. You have not been contributing anything except hate towards people of Pakistan.

You respond by cutting and pasting some lengthy piece from the internet about Zoroastrianism!!

Dont worry about Zoroastrianism and America and Israel and Lebanon. Deal with your own problems first - after several years on chowk, all you have proved is what behram summarized about you above.

sattar #190 you refer to ``USA foreign policy, Israel, Blair, and the infidel martians conspiring against Muslims``

For a second you had me worried, until I saw the part about ``infidel martians``. ha! ha! And I bet those sneaky plutonians are going to try and regain full planetary status unless mullah nasrullah shoots some missiles at them.

Shall go over your previous post addressed to me and get back later on it.